1 / 16

Horsted Keynes Neighbourhood Development Plan : Next steps

Learn about the next steps for the Horsted Keynes Neighbourhood Development Plan, including addressing housing supply, updating policies, and conducting assessments.

shawnda
Download Presentation

Horsted Keynes Neighbourhood Development Plan : Next steps

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Horsted Keynes Neighbourhood Development Plan : Next steps Lindsay Frost BA(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI Independent planning consultant May 2019

  2. The neighbourhood planning process • NDPs are legally required to follow the process set out in the NP (General) Regulations 2012-17 and meet certain “basic conditions” • The HKNDP reached stage 7 ( examination) in summer 2018, but was withdrawn by the PC in December 2018, after significant reservations expressed by the Examiner • Application to LPA and designation of NDP area • Identify the economic, social and environmental issues in the NDP area • Develop a vision and objectives for the NDP area • Generate and assess options to meet the vision and objectives • Draft the NDP • Consultation and submission to LPA • Further consultation by LPA • Independent examination and Examiners Report • Referendum and adoption

  3. Issues raised by the Examiner • The HKNDP does not significantly the boost housing supply ( as required by national and local planning policy) and the accompanying SA did not properly consider “reasonable alternatives”, or justify its chosen approach which undershoots MSDC development guideline • Submitted SA did not reflect latest available information • A range of development options need to be considered on some sites ,not just one “amalgamated site” • Relationship of policy HK1 to local planning policy unclear on “unspecified housing sites” adjacent to the settlement boundary

  4. Other matters that need to be considered in an updated HK NDP • Updated national guidance in NPPF July 2018 and February 2019 • Adoption of the Mid Sussex Local Plan ( March 2018) • Further work by MSDC on potential housing development sites in its Site Allocations Plan • Further sites submitted as part of the SHELAA process at MSDC • The HRA-ECJ judgement in People over Wind and Sweetman v CoillteTeoranta ( Ireland) and its impact on appropriate assessments under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC • Any other necessary updating and “tidying up” of NDP • Updated supporting documents : Sustainability Appraisal, Habitat Regulations Assessment , Basic Conditions Statement and Public Consultation Statement

  5. The way forward (1) • In January 2019, HKPC decided to renew work on the NDP to address all these issues , with a view to a revised plan seeking endorsement through the examination and referendum process • This means doing more work on the following matters : • reviewing all the potential housing development sites and subjecting them to Sustainability Appraisal • drawing conclusions on ability of HK NDP to meet the guideline figure in MSDC policy DP6 ( 53 dwellings) • updating the draft NDP to reflect conclusions on the above matters , and on policy and other matters needing updating

  6. The way forward (2) • If HKPC agree revised documents in coming weeks , then the programme is: ( ** if positive)

  7. Meeting housing needs / MSDC policy DP6 POLICY DP6 : SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY Development will be permitted within towns and villages with defined built-up area boundaries. Any infilling and redevelopment will be required to demonstrate that it is of an appropriate nature and scale (with particular regard to DP26: Character and Design), and not cause harm to the character and function of the settlement. The growth of settlements will be supported where this meets identified local housing, employment and community needs. Outside defined built-up area boundaries, the expansion of settlements will be supported where: • 1. The site is allocated in the District Plan, a Neighbourhood Plan or subsequent Development Plan Document or where the proposed development is for fewer than 10 dwellings; • and 2. The site is contiguous with an existing built up area of the settlement; • and 3. The development is demonstrated to be sustainable, including by reference to the settlement hierarchy. The developer will need to satisfy the Council that: • The proposal does not represent an underdevelopment of the site with regard to Policy DP26: Character and Design; or • A large site is not brought forward in phases that individually meet the threshold but cumulatively does not. Category 3 Medium sized villages providing essential services for the needs of their own residents and immediate surrounding communities. Whilst more limited, these can include key services such as primary schools, shops, recreation and community facilities, often shared with neighbouring settlements. Albourne, Ardingly, Ashurst Wood, Balcombe, Bolney, Handcross, Horsted Keynes, Pease Pottage, Sayers Common, Scaynes Hill, Sharpthorne, Turners Hill and West Hoathly HORSTED KEYNES : DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINE

  8. Factors in Sustainability Appraisal Many different factors need to be assessed, which include: • Availability of the site • Rural identity • Existing land use • Access and transportation • Impact on heritage assets • Impact on natural environment • Impact on landscape and green infrastructure • Scope for non-residential uses such as retail and employment • Scope for energy regeneration Discussions with MSDC and AONB Unit suggest key issues will be: • whether the site is available and development can be delivered in a timely way • relationship to the existing built up area of the village and impact on the character and appearance of the village, particularly heritage assets • access to the site • impact on the AONB : nationally important landscape

  9. Pros and cons in identifying more housing PROS • Government again emphasising need for NDPs to contribute to meeting identified housing needs • Do not need to justify an exceptional case for reduced housing in comparison with MSDC guideline, making it easier at examination • Will be supported by those arguing for more housing to meet local needs and support local facilities • Better protection against speculative planning applications and appeals • MSDC will make allocations anyway through SPD and this aproach gives more local control CONS • May be additional impact of development on AONB landscape, heritage and local road network • May be more objections to the NDP as a result • MSDC will make allocations anyway in absence of NDP

  10. Emerging conclusions Three sites appear to offer best prospects as housing development allocations , with least impact on the AONB landscape: • Jeffreys Farm (68) ( redevelopment of redundant farm buildings) – 6 dwellings • St. Stephen’s Field (184) – up to 30 dwellings • Land at rear of Old Police House (216/807 ) – up to 30 dwellings This would enable MSDC guideline to be met and give the HK NDP good prospects of meeting the “basic conditions” required

  11. Jeffrey’s Farm • All options here take development across the clear boundary provided by Sugar Lane • Three options within this site • Redevelopment of existing , largely vacant and derelict farm buildings (68) offers opportunity to clear an eyesore, but needs to respect rural character • Greenfield options to north(69) and south (971 ) have high impact on AONB : loss of medieval fields and development out of scale and character with settlement pattern

  12. St Stephen’s Field • Access available off Hamsland • Measures to ease local parking pressures required • Low impact on AONB , particularly if development follows contours • Good hedgerow and tree screening on west and south sides which should be protected and strengthened further • Needs sensitive layout to mitigate impact on some Hamslandfrontagers • Affordable housing required

  13. Land at rear of the Old Police House • Site has low to moderate AONB impact , if follows contours . • Good hedgerow and tree screening along Danehill Road and across centre of the site, which could be further strengthened • Access off Birchgrove Road ( not Danehill Road) with frontage development • Development would need to avoid, and maintain rural character of, footpath crossing site • Affordable housing required

  14. One further matter • A Community Land Trust is being formed in HK , with the aim of delivering projects to meet local housing need • This could involve : • partnering developers on allocated suites to provide and manage affordable housing • carrying out an up-to-date Housing Needs Survey for the parish • a “rural exceptions” site in a suitable location on the edge of the village • self-build or other community-led housing projects Does the Parish Council want to explore this further and, if appropriate, provide supportive policies in the NDP?

  15. Thank you Lindsay Frost Independent planning consultant Lewes, East Sussex Tel: 01273 486 448 /07722 297676 E: lfrost5@aol.com

More Related